Radeon R9 M485X vs GeForce GT 755M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 755M SLI and Radeon R9 M485X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 M485X outperforms GT 755M SLI by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 502 | 475 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.96 | 2.61 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | N14P-? | Amethyst |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 November 2013 (11 years ago) | 15 May 2016 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 768 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 723 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x 1300 Million | 5,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2x ~50 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 92.54 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.961 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 128 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | large | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 2 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 5400 MHz | 1250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 160.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 36
+2.9%
| 35−40
−2.9%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−10.2%
|
50−55
+10.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−4.8%
|
85−90
+4.8%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 20−22
−10%
|
21−24
+10%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 120−130
−7%
|
130−140
+7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−6.6%
|
65−70
+6.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
−10.2%
|
50−55
+10.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−33
−13.3%
|
30−35
+13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
−12.5%
|
18−20
+12.5%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−4.8%
|
85−90
+4.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18
−5.9%
|
18−20
+5.9%
|
| Dota 2 | 60−65
−6.6%
|
65−70
+6.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
−11.5%
|
27−30
+11.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
−8.3%
|
35−40
+8.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 20−22
−15%
|
21−24
+15%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
−10.3%
|
30−35
+10.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
−9.5%
|
21−24
+9.5%
|
| Valorant | 80−85
−4.8%
|
85−90
+4.8%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 45−50
−10.2%
|
50−55
+10.2%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
−7.9%
|
65−70
+7.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
−9.1%
|
12−14
+9.1%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
−8.7%
|
100−105
+8.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
−16.7%
|
21−24
+16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
−10.5%
|
21−24
+10.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
−7.7%
|
14−16
+7.7%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 16−18
−11.8%
|
18−20
+11.8%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
−5.3%
|
20−22
+5.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
−9.5%
|
45−50
+9.5%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−33
−10%
|
30−35
+10%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
This is how GT 755M SLI and R9 M485X compete in popular games:
- GT 755M SLI is 3% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M485X is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R9 M485X is ahead in 60 tests (90%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (10%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.68 | 9.50 |
| Recency | 1 November 2013 | 15 May 2016 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 2 Watt | 250 Watt |
GT 755M SLI has 12400% lower power consumption.
R9 M485X, on the other hand, has a 9.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 755M SLI and Radeon R9 M485X.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
